liiiiii 


\''/.':S','''''  !''''-l    '■ 


#''^ 


^t  ttit  ®hw%tai  ^ 


^** 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


*** 


% 


i^ 


Presented   b^Pw  7ST;B  .  \K  CaA  \  <2^  \  O  ,3) . 


o 

Division 

Section 


m 


m 


i 


^ 


•>'».vVA;i' ", . 


THE  iMAIN  ISSUE. 


A  Straight  Question 


-TO- 


Professor  Briggs. 


"""THE  MAIN  ISSUE. 


A  Straight  Question 


-TO- 


Professor  Brings. 


THE  SARATOGA   NEWS  COMPANY, 
Saratoga  Springs,  N.  Y. 


Copyright 

1890, 

By  Walden  &  Crawley. 


THE  MAIN  ISSUE. 


A  Straight  Question  to  Professor  Briggs. 


While  the  creed-revision  movement  will  probably  not 
accomplish  its  conscious  aims,  it  cannot  leave  the  great 
and  scholarly  Presbyterian  Church  as  it  found  it,  and  its 
incidental  effects  v\^ill  be  the  most  important.  One  of  these 
deserves  immediate  notice.  The  movement  threatens  to 
obscure  the  main  religious  issue  of  the  age.  It  is  largel}' 
the  work  of  a  party  of  whom  a  representative  and  leader 
is  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  the  foremost  American 
Old  Testament  scholar  ;  and  it  has  come  in  the  nick  of 
time  to  divert  attention  and  attack  from  Professor  Briggs' 
own  province  of  scholarship,  by  setting  the  denomination 
by  the  ears  upon  such  matters  as  justification  by  faith, 
infant  salvation,  the  middle  state,  reprobation,  and  the 
divine  attributes.  It  could  not  more  certainly  have  pro- 
duced this  effect  if  it  had  been  so  designed.  And,  so 
far,  this  has  been  its  most  important  effect. 

For,  as  Dr.  McCosh  has  wisely  observed,  the  issue  in- 
volved in  the  new  biblical  learning  must  take  precedence 
of  all  other  theological  questions.  Whether  of  his  own 
choice  or  not,  Professor  Briggs  stands,  not  for  creed- 
revision,  nor  for  the  importation  into  the  middle  and 
western  states  of  the  nugatory  middle-state  controversy, 
which  has  trivialized  and  otherwise  cursed  New  Eng- 
land,— but  for  the  new  scholarship.  His  ambition  may  be 
satisfied  with  the  leadership  of  a  party  in  the  Presbyterian 


Church  ;  his  fate  has  made  him  the  leader  of  the  party  o? 
the  higher  criticism  on  this  continent.  His  two  standard 
works,  ''Biblical  Study  " and  "Messianic  Prophecy,"  lie 
on  the  working  desks  of  thousands  of  young  clergymen 
of  all  denominations,  who  are  learning  therefrom  the 
methods,  and  imbibing  the  spii^it,  and  adjusting  them- 
selves to  some  of  the  results  of  the  new  criticism.  It 
aRects  their  preaching  and  their  teaching,  if  they  dare  to 
teach  ;  for  many  of  them  will  not  teach  in  their  own 
Sunday  schools,  explaining  privately  to  one  another  that 
they  cannot  submit  to  the  cross-examination  of  zealous 
ignorance.  To  these  men  the  new  criticism  has  brought 
questions  which  throw  all  those  raised  by  the  creed- 
revision  movement  into  the  background.  And  Professor 
Briggs  has  won  this  constituency  by  the  fact  that  his  fear- 
less scholarship  on  the  one  hand,  and  his  unchallenged 
occupancy  of  a  chair  in  a  Presbyterian  theological  sem- 
inary on  the  other,  seemed  to  warrant  the  confidence  that 
he  could  solve  these  questions.  His  books  would  have 
been  religiously  avoided  by  many  who  are  now  under 
their  spell,  had  they  not  felt  assured  that  such  as  he  must 
be  able  to  reconcile  the  new  scholarship  with  the  old 
theolog}-.  Hence,  if  there  is  any  doubt  of  his  having  done 
so,  he  owes  it  to  those  of  his  pupils  who  cannot  be  led 
off  on  a  false  trail  by  the  hue  and  cry  of  creed-revision, 
to  resolve  that  doubt.  Such  doubt  there  is,  and  to  it  this 
essay  seeks  to  give  definite  expression. 

It  is  no  secret  that,  outside  a  small  circle  of  specialists, 
the  considerable  interest,  both  friendly  and  hostile,  which 
the  new  biblical  scholarship  excites  in  this  country,  has 
theological  motives  behind  it.  American  Christianity  is  a 
theological  Christianity,  at  the  same  time  that  it  honestly 


believes  and  boasts  itself  to  be  a  Bible  Christianity.  For 
it  is  founded  not  merely  upon  the  Bible,  but  upon  the 
Bible  regarded  with  a  particular  attitude  of  mind  ;  which 
attitude  theology  has  determined.  Change  or  ignore  the 
theology  and  that  attitude  is  liable  to  change.  Change 
that  attitude,  and,  for  all  that  ninety-nine  persons  in  a 
hundred  can  be  made  to  see,  you  may  as  well  destroy  the 
Bible  itself  and  Christianity  with  it.  The  old  scholarship 
was  trusted  ;  for  it  seemed  to  have  taken  its  brief  from 
the  old  theolog3\  The  new  scholarship  is  distrusted  ;  for 
it  is  a  department  of  the  new  science,  with  which  the  old 
theology  has  no  dealings. 

The  reason  the  old  theology  has  no  dealings  with  the 
new  science  is  that  ^vhile  the  one  depends  upon  the 
definite  affirmation  of  the  supernatural,  the  other  cannot 
survive  such  definite  affirmation.  Take  away  the  super- 
natural from  the  old  theology,  and  it  is  a  bald  and  non- 
religious  form  of  metaphysical  deism.  Impose  the  super- 
natural in  the  same  sense  upon  the  new  science,  and  it 
is  paralyzed.  Many  scientific  men,  it  is  true,  profess 
belief  in  the  supernatural.  But  they  are  invariably  special- 
ists, whose  scientific  horizon  is  bounded  by  their  own 
departments  ;  while  the  supernatural  which  each  believes 
in  is  always  in  some  other  department, — as  though  each 
felt  that  he  could  take  care  of  his  own  province,  but 
"  God  help  the  departments  that  have  not  our  services  !  " 
A  renowned  jurist  writes  down  Darwinism.  A  botanist 
protests  against  applying  the  scientific  method  to  ethics. 
A  famous  astronomer  defends  the  Bible  miracles, — 
except  Joshua's  stationary  sun  and  the  migratory  star  of 
Bethlehem  ;  here  he  shifts  the  supernatural  into  some 
department  for  the  integrity  of  whose  natural  order  !ie 


has  less  personal  concern.  Of  jurists,  however,  who 
applied  the  test  of  the  hot  plough  shares,  of  botanists  vv^ho 
patched  up  apparent  breaks  in  natural  sequence  with  the 
aid  of  teleolog}^,  of  asti-onomers  who  exjjlained  comets  as 
divine  messengers  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  celestial 
mechanics,  the  generation  is  extinct.  No  teacher  of 
science  to-day  puts  his  finger  upon  a  specific  fact  and 
says  to  his  class  :  "  This  had  no  natural  cause,  and  was 
produced  by  a  direct  supernatural  intervention."  A  stor}' 
is,  indeed,  being  told  of  a  professor  of  biology  who  has 
agi'eed,  as  a  condition  of  his  ajDpointment,  to  teach  super- 
naturalism  in  his  department.  But  the  story  has  its  chief 
circulation  as  a  joke  among  other  specialists  in  the  same 
line.  The  science  of  this  age  may  be  all  wrong  ;  but  its 
mind  is  made  up.  It  tolerates  or  even  patronizes  the 
supernatural  at  a  distance.  It  treats  with  the  indifference 
of  contempt  any  supernatural  claim  which  proposes  to 
stand  in  the  way  of  its  next  step. 

This  disagreement  between  the  old  theology  and  the 
new  science  is  not  to  be  explained  away  by  any  double 
sense  of  the  term.  What  the  one  affirms  is  the  same 
which  the  other  denies.  Too  zealous  peacemakers  have 
been  fain  to  reduce  the  claims  of  theology  to  special 
design  or  final  cause.  This  will  not  satisfy  the  old 
theology.  It  maintains  not  only  special  divine  purpose 
but  special  divine  causation.  The  interest  of  the  old 
theologian  in  the  discovery  of  special  designs  grew  out  of 
the  inference  which  he  supposed  could  be  drawn  there- 
from as  to  supernatural  causes.  Science  did  not  disprove 
the  designs  ;  she  simply  brought  to  light  adequate  natural 
causes.  And  with  the  discovery  of  these  adequate  causes 
the   theologian's   interest   in   the  designs  vanished,  and 


his  affirmation  of  divine  causation  retieatcd  from  the 
specific  toward  the  generic.  The  goal  of  this  retreat  is 
either  pure  deism  or  immanent  theism,  which  aHke  affirm 
only  a  generic  relationship  of  the  divine  and  the  human. 
The  old  theology  dare  not  retreat  as  far  as  that. 

The  instinct  of  American  Christianity  has  made  it  as 
shy  of  immanent  theism  as  of  deism.  Its  practical  wis- 
dom has  shown  it  that  the  doctrine  of  a  generic  divinity 
is  not  a  sufficient  basis  for  an  aggressive  jDopular  religion. 
To  succeed,  such  a  religion  must  assume  that  it  has,  not 
only  a  particular  divine  revelation,  but  a  pai'ticular  divine 
causal  activity.  American  Christianity  therefore  believes 
that  its  continued  existence  depends  upon  its  faith  in  the 
specific  exercise  of  supernatural  power ;  and,  since  it 
regards  the  Bible  as  its  foundation,  it  looks  with  peculiar 
horror  upon  the  surrender  of  the  principle  of  supernatural 
causation  with  respect  to  the  Bible.  For  this  reason  the 
old  scholarship,  instigated  by  the  old  theology,  with  the 
whole  force  of  poj^ular  Christianity  at  its  back,  is  making 
a  desperate  stand  against  the  effort  to  discover  natural 
causes  for  the  Bible  and  for  the  ideas  which  it  embodies. 
The  issue  is  unmistakable,  and  concerns  the  continuity 
or  the  discontinuity  of  the  order  of  natural  causes  in  the 
case  of  the  origin  of  the  Bible.  The  old  theologv,  as  the 
exponent  of  the  religious  life  of  the  people,  demands  the 
assumption  of  discontinuity.  The  new  scholarship,  as  a 
department  of  the  new  science,  must  assume  continuity. 

How  has  Professor  Briggs  met  this  issue  in  his  eflbrt 
to  harmonize  the  new  scholarship  and  the  American 
type  of  Christianity  ?  Has  he  been  able  to  transplant  the 
scientific  scholarship  of  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  without 
their   pure    naturalism.^     The   religious  instinct   of  the 


lO 

masses  is  deepl}'  suspicious  as  to  the  possibility  of  it, — 
that  instinct  which  taught  a  great  Sunday  school  journal 
that  it  had  better  pay  forfeits  than  continue  to  print 
articles  bargained  for  from  an  Oxford  scholar.  Dr.  Green 
still  ranks  as  the  supreme  authority  in  the  Sunday  School 
Times.  But  Dr.  Briggs  is  cherished  in  a  high  position 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  he  has  with  him  a 
powerful,  if  rather  silent,  minority  of  the  ministry  ;  while 
a  majority  of  the  well-informed  clergy  and  laity  are  pond- 
ering with  great  seriousness  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  the  new  scholarship  and  the  old  theology,  the  question 
of  the  sujjernatural. 

The  best  way  to  learn  Professor  Briggs'  attitude  on 
that  question  is  to  review  his  treatise  on  "  Messianic 
Prophecy,"  in  which  he  "•  traces  the  Messianic  idea  in  its 
development  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures."  (p  ix.) 
For  this  work  "the  author  has  spent  many  years  in 
preparation."  "It  has  cost  him  more  labor  than  all 
other  topics  combined.  It  has  been  a  labor  of  love  and 
enthusiasm."  (p  xv.)  It  "is  designed  chiefly  for  the- 
ological students  and  ministers."  (p  xiii.)  Yet  "  the 
author  desires  that'it  ma}'  be  of  value  to  the  thoughtful 
layman  and  to  Sabbath  school  teachers."  (p  xv.)  The 
book  has  won  its  place  as  a  standard  work,  confirming  the 
verdict  of  an  eminent  professor  in  another  Presbyterian 
theological  seminary:  "If  there  still  be,  as  of  course 
there  still  are,  among  us  any  to  whom  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism is  identical  with  unchristian  speculation,  or  nec- 
essarilly  moved  by  atheistic"  (i.  e.  anti-supernaturalistic) 
"  bias,  we  commend  to  them  this  volume."  (Dr.  H.  P. 
Smith,  in  Pres.  Rev.,  Vol. VIII,  P35i.)  Thus  the  volume 
is  vouched  for,  by  a  friendly  yet  competent  critic,  as  both 


II 

genuine  higher  criticism,  and  at  the  same  time  not  anti- 
supernaturalistic.  This  makes  it  worth  while  to  inquire 
what  disposition  it  makes  of  the  supernatural. 

The  main  question  will  be  whether  this  "  development 
of  the  Messianic  idea  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures" 
is  represented  as  a  true  evolution,  conforming  to  the  law 
of  continuity.  Omitting  the  difficult  problem  of  the 
origin  of  the  prophetic  germ,  the  Protevangelium,  which 
appears  to  be  prehistoric,  are  there  adequate  causes,  in 
the  inherent  vitality  of  this  germ,  and  in  historical  and 
individual  experience,  to  account  for  its  growth  into  the 
perfect  Messianic  ideal?  Or  did  other  than  natural  causes 
intervene  at  certain  points? 

The  author  approaches  the  problem  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Messianic  idea  through  a  discussion  of  Hebrew 
prophecy  in  general  and  of  predictive  prophecy  in  par- 
ticular. In  these  preliminary  chapters  his  theoretical 
attitude  toward  the  supernatural  should  be  discovered. 
In  the  first  chapter  we  learn  that  he  regards  no  particular 
phase  of  prophecy  as  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew.  Nor  is 
genuine  prophecy  peculiarly  Hebrew;  since  there  is 
genuine  prophecy  that  is  not  Hebrew,  and  Hebrew 
prophecy  that  is  not  genuine.  And  there  is  supernatural, 
or,  as  he  calls  it,  "  divine"  prophecy  that  is  not  Hebrew, 
and  Hebrew  prophecy  that  is  merely  instinctive  or  natural. 
Neither  is  supernatural  prophecy  the  same  as  genuine 
prophecy  ;  for  there  is  genuine  prophecy,  both  Hebrew 
and  heathen,  which  is  not  supernatural.  A  test  of  gen- 
uineness is  given,  (p  22.)  No  test  of  supernaturalness 
is  given.  The  only  test  of  supernaturalness  is  the  infal- 
lible assurance  of  the  soul  of  his  prophet ;  but  this  is 
subjective,  and  with  no  means  of  making  itself  objectively 


12 

valid.  The  author  attempts  to  discriminate  between 
theophanies,  or  objective  visions,  whereby  the  greater 
prophets  received  their  revelations,  and  the  mere  internal 
subjective  assurance  of  the  ordinary  prophet,  (pp  20,  21 .) 
But  these  theophanies  were  objective  only  to  those  who 
saw  them  ;  no  way  is  designated  by  which  they  could  be 
made  objective  to  others  or  distinguished  from  hallucina- 
tions. The  author  admits  that  "the  infallible  assurance 
of  the  soul  of  the  prophet  may  be  difficult  to  distinguish 
from  the  false  assurance  of  enthusiasts  and  the  confident 
self  assertion  of  the  prophet  of  lies."  (p  23.)  If  the 
prophecy  does  not  conform  to  truth  he  would  not  allow 
that  it  is  supernatural,  no  matter  how  infallibly  assured 
the  soul  of  the  prophet  may  have  been.  That  is  a  lame 
test,  however ;  for,  although  non-conformity  to  truth- 
might  be  held  to  disprove  supernaturalness,  (though  that 
has  often  been  disputed),  conformity  to  truth  cannot 
prove  supernaturalness.  For  it  is  admitted  that  there 
are  truthful  prophecies  which  are  not  supernatural,  and 
these  may  be  spoken  by  deluded  enthusiasts  or  lying 
pretenders  who  affirm  an  infallible  subjective  assurance 
of  their  supernaturalness. 

It  thus  appears  that  there  is  no  way  to  distinguish 
supernatural  prophecy  from  instinctive  or  natural  proph- 
ecy, no  way  to  show  that  the  prophet's  conviction  of  a 
divine  impulse  is  not  mistaken.  A  pupil  of  Professor 
Briggs  who  seeks  to  explain  on  natural  grounds  these 
assurances  of  divine  impulse  on  the  part  of  the  prophets, 
need  not  controvert  his  teacher.  The  teacher  himself 
betrays  so  strong  a  tendency  to  minimize  the  supernatural 
that  he  quotes  with  approval  a  remark  of  Riehm  that  "  it 
is  sufficient  that  we  recognize  the  divine  origin  of  the 


^3 

communication  as  external  to  the  soul  of  man.  There 
are  no  sufficient  reasons  for  extending  the  external  origin 
to  the  form  and  the  words  of  the  communication.  The 
stimulation  of  the  higher  nature  of  man  by  a  divine  im- 
pulse is  all  that  can  be  proven  with  reference  to  the  mass 
of  Hebrew  prophecy."  (p  14,  note.)  And  even  that 
stimulation  has  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  man 
believes  that  his  mind  has  been  not  only  stimulated  but 
actually  informed.  If  we  discount  the  prophet's  convic- 
tion that  the  form  of  the  communication  is  divinely 
caused,  why  not  also  his  conviction  that  the  stimulus 
was  of  divine  origin  .'' 

It  must  be  said,  therefore,  that,  so  far  as  the  first 
chapter  is  concerned.  Professor  Briggs  abandons  the  al- 
leged supernatural  impulse,  providing  no  test  of  its  reality, 
and  crowding  it  off  into  the  department  of  psychology, 
or  that  of  religious  experience,  for  the  integrity  of  the 
causal  order  in  neither  of  which  departments  is  he  as  a 
specialist  responsible.  There  is,  however,  in  this  chapter 
a  certain  kind  of  supernatural  which  the  author  does  not 
depreciate  or  leave  to  its  fate,  seemingly  because  he 
has  chosen  it  as  a  delicacy  to  gratify  his  own  taste  for 
naturalizing.  That  wdiich  is  characteristic  of  Hebrew^ 
prophecy  is  its  prophetic  organism,  embodying  an  ideal 
of  which  he  says  that  "it  is  higher  and  grander  than  any 
other  known  to  man ;  it  is  so  much  higher  and  grander 
that  it  separates  Hebrew  prophecy  from  all  other  prophecy . 

It  gives  it  a  unique  position  and  importance If 

it  be  not  divine  in  origin  and  direction,  whence  did  it 
originate.'*"  (p  29.)  Since  the  Professor's  answer  is  that 
"it  is  divine,"  we  naturally  expect  him  to  go  on  and 
point  out  whereabouts  the  divine  energy  intervenes.     In- 


H 

stead  of  doing  this  he  runs  into  an  argument  to  the  etiect 
that  it  probably  must  have  intervened  somewhere  be- 
cause of  the  uniqueness  of  the  idea.  He  is  a  trifle  shaky, 
however,  about  this,  and  concedes  that  ''  we  do  not  claim 
that  such  an  idea  could  not  be  evolved  by  the  human 
mind,  but  in  fact  such  an  idea  has  not  been  evolved  in 
any  other  religion."  (p  29.)  It  certainly  has  not ;  neither 
have  the  Buddhistic  nor  the  Platonic  conceptions  had 
more  than  one  development  each.  Great  ideas  are  likely 
to  be  unique  in  origin.  Equally  unfortunate  is  Professor 
Briggs'  argument  w^hen  he  says  that  "the  human  soul  is 
capable  of  this  divine  knowledge  and  Hebrew  prophecy 
gives  the  divine  knowledge  that  satisfies  the  soul.  This 
is  an  evidence  that  prophecy  had  a  divine  source."  (p  30.) 
The  current  scientific  notion  is  that  when  the  soul  gets 
precisely  what  ideals  it  has  an  appetency  for,  the  pre- 
sumption is  strong  that  it  has  created  them  for  itself;  so 
that  this  proof  would  be  claimed  in  the  other  direction. 
,  The  illuminating  thing  however  about  this  contention 
of  the  Professor  for  the  supernatural  origin  of  the  pro- 
phetic ideal,  is  the  natui'e  of  this  ideal  when  he  comes  at 
last  to  define  and  classify  it.  "The  doctrines  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets,"  he  says,  "transcend  the  powers  of 
human  apprehension  and  conception,  and,  like  the  sublime 
ideas  of  the  reason^ — -fortn  and  time  and  space^ — circum- 
scribe human  experience  and  invoke  the  Deity  to  explain 
them  as  conceptions  of  the  divine  mind."  (p  31.)  (Italics 
ours.)  It  turns  out  then  that  the  only  supernatural  the 
Professor  cares  to  maintain  is  one  that  belongs  to  the 
same  category  with  form,  and  time  and  space  !  Does  he, 
as  a  specialist,  concern  himself  for  the  integrity  of  the 
natural  order  with  respect  to  the  gene«is  of  the  ideas  of 


15 

time  and  space  ?  Science  will  not  quarrel  with  him  about 
a  supernatural  of  this  sort,  but  will  relegate  the  question 
of  its  origin  to  the  proper  specialists,  and  will  agree  with 
him  when  he  says  that  "  call  this  ideal  what  we  please, 
natural  or  supernatural,  it  matters  not."     (p  39.) 

It  does  matter  though,  to  the  old  theology;  upon  which 
the  attempt  is  made  to  palm  off  this  as  a  legitimate  super- 
natural which  can  act  as  a  cause  to  disrupt  the  natural 
order.  This  is  a  changeling.  It  is  not  the  supernatural 
the  Professor  started  out  with.  He  tired  of  that,  and 
abandoned  it  to  the  psychologist  to  be  anatomized,  while 
he  was  supplied  with  tliis  by  the  questionable  fairy  of  im- 
manent theism.  That  was  definable  as  "a  divine  im- 
pulse," and  belonged  to  the  class  of  special  causes,  and 
would  have  broken  the  line  of  continuity,  and  satisfied 
the  old  theology.  This,  charming  and  provocative  of 
eloquence  as  it  is,  is  no  proper  cause  at  all ;  nor  is  it 
such  an  effect  as  to  warrant  the  inference  of  a  specific 
cause. 

So  far  then  as  concerns  the  first  chapter  the  author 
does  not  actually  maintain  any  position  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  scientific  assumption  of  continuity,  at 
least  in  his  own  special  department.  His  strong  asser- 
tions in  behalf  of  supernaturalism  appear  upon  analysis 
to  be  little  better  than  rhetoric,  and  he  is  practically  on 
excellent  terms  with  pure  naturalism. 

A  review  of  the  chapter  on  "Prediction,"  yields 
similar  results.  A  blank  cartridge  is  fired  at  the  arch 
naturalist  Kuenen,  and  then  he  is  quoted  effectively 
against  the  scholastics.  The  prophecies  are  admitted 
to  be  predictive  only  as  to  "  the  essential  and  ideal" 
elements,    such    as    belong  to   the   same   category   with 


i6 

"form  and  time  and  space."  By  way  of  emphasizing' 
this,  attention  is  called  to  tl:|e  fact  that  Jesus  was  simi- 
larly limited,  that  it  was  inevitable  that  not  only  the 
prophets,  but  Jesus  himself,  should  mistake  about  the 
times  of  fulfilment,  (p  53);  that  predictions  ^''cannot 
transcend  the  psychological  aiid  physical  features  of  hicijian 
nature"  (p  55)  ;  that  the  prophet  only  '-'•  foresees  the  fi7ial 
goal^  but  not  the  intervening  conditions  or  circicmstances" 
(p  56)  ;  that  "///(?  prophet  knows  not  times  or  seasotis^'^ 
(p  57) »  that  "  there  is  an  uncertain  factor  in  all  prediction^ 
which  depends  upon  the  ever  varying  relations  of  God  aiid 
man  in  the  interplay  of  human  freedom  and  divine  law.  Tlie 
variation  of  forces  in  the  divine  mind  and  in  human  experience^ 
and  the  corresponding  variations  of  forces  in  history,  shorten 
or  prolong^!  simplify  or  make  complex  and  uncertain  all 
preparatory  times  and  events .^{p  58);  that  '•'•  history  advances 
with  prophecy  toward  the  same  goal"  (p  63),  (Italics  the 
Professor's);  that  "thus  we  ought  to  expect  that  the 
Messianic  ideal  should  be  realized  in  some  of  its  phases 
ere  the  ideal  itself  is  attained,  and  that  the  later  predic- 
tions should  base  themselves  upon  these  partial  realiza- 
tions," (p  65). 

In  short,  the  Professor  follows  the  line  indicated  in 
his  approving  quotation  from  Tholuck,  that  "it  is  not 
prediction  of  the  accidental  but  of  that  which  is  of  re- 
ligious necessity  which  is  the  essential  thing  in  Hebrew 
prophecy."  (p  44.)  Prediction  of  that  which  is  "of 
religious  necessity"  will  satisfy  science,  but  not  the  old 
theology,  which  has  always  maintained  the  prediction  of 
the  accidental,  as  a  ground  for  the  inference  of  super- 
natural intervention.  Prediction  of  that  which  is  of 
religious  necessity  ranks  with  predictions  based  upon  the 


17 

law  of  gravitation.  The  law  itself  "■  may  be  called 
natural  or  supernatural,  it  matters  not ;  "  but  there  need 
be  nothing  supernatural  either  in  the  discovery  or  the 
application  of  the  law,  or  in  the  instinctive  (to  use  the 
author's  word)  application  of  the  law  in  advance  of  its 
discovery. 

The  answer  t6  the  main  question  might  now  almost  be 
anticipated.  What  part  does  Professor  Briggs  assign  to 
the  supernatural  in  the  course  of  the  growth  of  the 
Messianic  idea  from  the  germ  to  the  perfected  form? 
Does  he  put  his  finger  upon  any  spot  and  say*:  "  Here 
intervened  a  supernatural  cause  "?  His  study  is  summed 
up  in  such  words  as  these  :  "  Hebrew  prophecy  indicates 
its  reality,  its  accuracy,  its  comprehensive  ideality  as  a 
conception  of  the  divine  mind,  as  a  deliverance  of  the 
divine  energy,  as  a  system  constructed  by  holy  men  who 
spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  (p  498.) 
"None  but  God  could  give  such  prophecy."  (p  499.)  A 
stranger  to  the  book,  glancing  at  the  last  two  pages, 
would  infer  that  this  was  an  induction,  and  that  many 
examples  of  the  direct  operation  of  the  "divine  energy" 
had  been  noted  in  the  course  of  the  development  of 
prophecy.  He  would  turn  to  the  chapters  that  deal  with 
the  critical  phases  of  that  development,  where  long  steps 
were  taken  from  lower  to  higher  conceptions,  expecting 
to  see  the  insufficiency  of  naturalistic  explanations  set 
forth,  and  the  points  designated  wdiere  the  "  divine 
energy"  operated.     Would   his  expectation  be  fulfilled? 

The  two  most  important  steps  in  the  progress  from 
lower  to  higher  and  more  adequate  conceptions  are  the 
transition  from  the  idea  of  retributive  to  that  of  disci- 
plinary suffering,  and  the  further  transition  from  tlie  idea 


16 

of  disciplinary  to  that  of  vicarious  suffering.  Of  the  in- 
troduction of  the  disciplinary  idea,  (Isa.  4:  2-6),  the 
author  says:  "This  prediction  is  of  great  importance. 
It  really  opens  up  two  new  phases  of  the  Messianic  idea." 
(p  194.)  Not  a  word,  however,  about  supernatural  caus- 
ation. On  the  contrary,  stress  is  laid  upon  the  greatness 
and  many-sidedness  of  Isaiah,  and  the  fruitful  conditions 
of  the  times.  In  preface  to  the  quoted  prediction  it  is 
said  that  he  combines  "  the  excellence  of  all  who  had 
gone  before  him,  adapting  and  building  into  the  system 
of  his  prophecy  the  best  thoughts  of  his  contemporaries 
and  predecessors,  yet  with  such  an  originality  and  ap- 
propriateness of  setting  that  no  one  could  regard  him  as 
a  copyist  or  plagiarist."  (p  190.)  His  prophecies  "spring 
up  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  historical  present  in 
order  to  leap  forth  into  the  most  distant  future."  (p  191.) 
The  failure  to  affirm  the  supernaturalness  of  the  pre- 
diction which  "really  opens  up  two  new  phases  of  the 
Messianic  idea"  becomes  the  more  conspicuous  when 
compared  with  the  treatment,  immediately  preceding  it, 
of  the  alleged  prediction  of  the  betrayal  of  Jesus,  (Zech. 
ic:  12,  13),  a  prediction  which  Matthew  positively 
claims  as  applicable  to  details.  This  the  author  sets 
aside,  saying  that  "  the  correspondence,  in  fact,  is  not 
owing  to  the  precision  of  the  prophetic  tradition,  but  to 
the  correspondence  in  situation  between  the  rejected 
Jahveh  of  the  times  of  the  decay  of  the  northern  king- 
dom of  Israel,  and  the  rejected  Messiah  of  the  New 
Testament."  (p  190  note.)  With  equal  positiv'eness 
does  the  author  brush  aside  that  /ecus  classicus  of  a  the- 
ology which  rested  on  the  prediction  of  accidentals, 
(Isa.  7:  13-17)  wherein  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  from  a 


19 

virgin  is  supi^osed  to  have  been  foretold,  another  of  the 
predictions  quoted  by  Matthew.  The  Professor  says  that 
''  the  significance  of  the  sign  is  in  the  child  and  in  his 
name,  and  not  in  the  mother.  The  Hebrew  word  might 
mean  a  virgin,  but  it  does  not  in  itself  convey  the  idea  of 
virginity.  If  the  prophet  wished  to  emphasize  virginity 
he  would  have  doubtless  used  another  and  more  defuiite 
term."     {p  196.) 

The  most  important  thing  in  prophecy  is  the  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  of  a  sulleri ng  Messiah.  To  this  the 
author  devotes  many  pages,  the  general  tenor  of  which 
may  be  indicated  by  the  following  quotations  :  "The 
exile  was  a  bitter  experience  for  the  pious  Israelite  .  .  . 
.  .  .  The  pious  were  indeed  the  greatest  suflerers,  for 
they  shared  the  persecutions  to  which  Jeremiah  and 
others  like  minded  had  been  subjected."  (p  320.)  "Piety 
was  now  synonymous  with  affliction  and  sorrow.  The 
ideal  of  the  suffering  Messiah  had  its  genesis  in  these 
circumstances,   and  yet  it  was  not  without  connection 

with  earlier  Messianic  prophecies The  problem 

of  redemption  became  complicated,  owing  to  the  fact 
that  not  only  did  the  sinner  suffer  for  his  evil  deeds,  but 

the  righteous  man He   suffered   no  longer  for 

sin  but  for  I'ighteousncss  sake This  conception  is 

found  in  germ  in  the  Protevangclium It  is  also 

contained  in  the  covenants  with  Abraham  and  David. 
What  Egypt  was  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  that  the  exile 
became  to  the  seed  of  David."  (p  321.)  '*  But  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  exile,  and  especially  the  experience 
of  the  persecuted  Jeremiah  and  his  associates,  taught  the 
people  of  God  lessons  they  had  never  learned  before.  It 
seems  probable  that  Jeremiah  was  the  tyjDc  of  the  great 


20 

sufferer,  for  he  was  the  hero  of  the  exiles,  the  great  his- 
torical sufterer  for  God He  is  the  basis  of  the 

representation,  but  the  divine  Spirit  guided  the  psalmists 
to  discern  and  describe  a  sufterer  whose  experience  was 
more  bitter  than  that  of  Jeremiah,  and  whose  sufterings 
were  rewarded  with  a  redemption  which  Jeremiah  did 
not  gain."  Yet, — and  it  is  the  next  sentence, — "there 
is  a  vividness  of  intense  realization  of  suffering  on  the 
pai't  of  these  psalmists.  They  must  have  been  great 
sufferers  themselves.  They  describe  sufterings  in  such 
minute  details,  and  with  such  an  intensity  of  feeling,  that 
these  must  be  real  though  extravagant The  psalm- 
ists sink  deejD  in  the  apprehension  of  their  own  sorrows, 
but  these  lead  to  depths  of  woe  which  are  apprehended 
in  the  imagination  and  fancy  through  foreboding  and 
presentiment."  (p  332.)  "These  psalms  of  the  great 
sufferer  prepare  the  way  for  the  suffering  servant  of 
Isaiah  53."  (p  336.)  This  second  Isaiah  "  stands  on  the 
loftiest  peak  of  prophecy.  He  masses  more  Messianic 
predictions  in  his  book  than  any  of  the  prophets  that 
preceded  him.  He  carries  the  Messianic  idea  to  a  much 
higher  stage  of  development,  so  that  he  becomes  the 
evangelical  prophet,  who  seems  to  be  the  nearest  to  the 
Messiah  and  the  theology  of  the  New  Covenant.  The 
circumstances  of  the  exile  were  favorable  to  this.  It  is 
doubtful  whether  it  was  possible  for  a  prophet  living  in 
the  land  of  Israel."  (p  337.)  "  But  the  prophecy  of  the 
great  unknown  reffects  the  experience  of  a  prophet  who 
had  lived  .long  in  exile."  (p  33S.)  "  The  pi'ophet  now 
advances  to  the  climax  of  these  sufferings.  They  culmin- 
ate in  death.  This  is  described  as  the  sacrifice  of  a 
sheep,  and  as  the  death  of  a  martyr."     (p  362.)    "The 


21 

prophet  finally  represents  that  this  sufiering  has  been  in 

order  to  accomplish  a  plan  of  redemption When 

this  has  been  accomplished  the  condition  of  humiliation 
has  come  to  an  end  and  the  exaltation  of  the  servant  be- 
gins. There  is  no  explicit  mention  of  a  resurrection,  but 
this  is  implicitly  involved,  for  he  who  has  died  a  martyr's 
death  must  rise  from  the  dead  in  order  to  receive  the 
rewards  of  his  service This  prophecy  of  the  serv- 
ant who  dies  and  rises  from  the  grave  finds  its  only 
fulfilment  in  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  resurrec- 
tion and  exaltation  to  his  heavenly  throne."     (p  363.) 

It  is  not  strange  that  Professor  Briggs  could  say  of 
such  a  piece  of  work  as  the  above  that  it  was  "a  work 
of  love  and  enthusiasm."  But  an  outsider  can  hardly  re- 
sist the  impression  that  the  seductions  which  have  won  his 
love,  and  the  charms  which  have  aroused  his  enthusiasm, 
are  those  of  modern  science,  with  its  fascinating  principle, 
which  he  has  so  aptly  and  faithfully  applied,  of  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  natural  order  of  development ;  and  if  not  a 
few  of  the  younger  clergy  have  been  lured  by  the  same 
seductions  into  the  embraces  of  naturalism,  Professor 
Briggs'  contagious  enthusiasm  must  share  the  responsi- 
bility for  it.  In  but  two  instances  in  the  whole  course  of 
this  discussion  is  any  disposition  shown  to  recognize  the 
supernatural.  There  is  a  cautious  and  minimizing  state- 
ment concerning  the  prediction  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
slain  prophet.  The  author  does  not  say  that  there  was 
any  such  prediction,  but  only  that  the  exaltation  foretold 
logically  involved  a  resurrection.  It  is  doubtful  whether, 
if  the  issue  were  raised,  he  would  be  willing  to  say  that 
a  Jew  of  that  period  would  have  seen  it  in  that  light,  or 
that  the  prophet  had  in  mind  anything  more  than  a  post- 


32 

liuiiioiis  vindication.  If  the  prophet  had  seemed  to  draw 
the  logical  inference  of  a  i-esurrection,  would  we  not  find 
the  author  explaining  it  away,  as  he  explained  the  alleged 
prediction  of  the  betrayal? 

The  other  case  where  the  supernatural  seems  to  be 
invoked,  is  where  it  is  said  that  the  divine  Spirit  guided 
tiie  psalmists  beyond  the  experience  of  Jeremiah.  But, 
as  though  at  once  to  propitiate  frowning  science  for  such 
a  tribute  to  her  rival,  he  hastens  to  explain  that  their  own 
sutTerings  must  have  been  intense  and  that  the  depths  of 
woe  which  they  described  without  having  fathomed  them 
in  experience,  "were  apprehended  in  imagination  and 
fancy  through  foreboding  and  presentiment."  It  is  not 
intimated  that  this  foreboding  and  presentiment  con- 
tained any  elements  that  exceeded  the  natural  powers  of 
the  imagination  under  the  stimulus  of  spiritual  influences 
which  are  a  part  of  the  natural  order  ;  like  as,  according 
to  immanent  theism,  the  divine  Spirit  belongs  to  the 
natural  order,  exerting  a  purely  generic  influence  which 
does  not  interfere  with  causal  continuity. 

Professor  Briggs,  then,  seems  to  have  applied,  with 
practical  corisistency,  to  the  development  of  the  Messianic 
idea,  the  same  principles  and  methods  which  he  em. 
ployed  in  the  chapters  on  prophecy  in  general  and  on 
pi"ediction.  He  has  said  nothing  concerning  any  alleged 
supernatural  events  which  he  need  ever  retract  should 
they  all  be  shown  to  be  quite  natural.  He  has  turned  ofl 
graceful  though  elusive  phrases  in  praise  of  a  kind  of 
supernatural,  which,  when  cornered  and  captured,  evades 
criticism  by  classifying  itself  with  the  "ideas  that  cir- 
cumscribe experience,"  "form  and  time  and  space,"  In 
short,  he  banishes  miracles,  in  the  sense  in  which  Amer- 


23 

ican  Christianity  understands  miracles,  from  the  course 
of  development  of  Messianic  prophecv. 

Will  American  Christianity  stand  that?  If  the  leadinfj 
I^rofessor  in  one  of  the  two  leading  schools  of  the  most 
learned  and  orthodox  of  the  great  denominations,  can 
naturalize  away  by  far  the  most  important  miraculous 
element  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  cooly  promise,  (p  viii), 
■JL  second  volume  upon  the  same  subject  as  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  a  third  upon  that  subject  in  Christian 
history,  in  which  presumably  the  same  method  will  be 
employed  ;  what  will  be  left  of  the  supernatural  to  the 
American  Church,  after  that  promise  has  been  fulfilled, 
and  the  other  two  volumes  have  won  such  a  place  of  in- 
fluence in  the  minds  of  the  younger  clergy  as  the  first 
already  holds?  Can  American  Christianity  survive  such 
a  revolution  as  that  implies?  Is  it  ready  to  meet  such  a 
crisis? 

"It  is  incredible,"  the  reader  will  say  on  first  impulse  ; 
"Professor  Briggs  cannot  have  meant  any  such  thing. 
He  could  not  have  continued  to  hold  the  leading  position 
he  does,  if  he  had  meant  such  a  thing."  There  is  some- 
thing in  that ;  and  the  Professor's  failure  to  make  his 
supernaturalism  unequivocal  is  probably  because,  for  some 
good  reason,  this  issue  was  not  distinctly  before  his  mind. 
But  it  is  before  the  mind  of  the  American  Church,  and  it 
is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  emphasize  it,  and  to  protest 
against  its  being  obscured  by  controversy  about  second- 
ary questions,  however  important.  It  is  not  claimed  that 
the  foregoing  criticism  warrants  a  verdict  against  Profes- 
sor Briggs  of  having  denied  supernatural  intervention  ; 
but  only  that  it  has  convicted  him  of  failure  to  make  his 
attitude  as  unmistakable  as  the  public  hcs  a  right  to  de- 


24 

mand  of  a  specialist  and  author  and  teacher  of  teachers, 
and  a  champion  of  a  party  which  is  openly  accused  of 
naturalism. 

For  this  reason  the  attempt  is  here  made  to  render 
articulate  the  questioning  attitude  of  a  large  and  respect- 
ably well  informed  public,  toward  that  school  of  biblical 
learning  to  which  Professor  Briggs  belongs,  and  for 
which  he  has,  as  few  others,  the  right,  the  ability  and 
the  proved  courage  to  speak.  If  he  would  trouble  him- 
self to  answer  the  following  questions,  suggested  by  a 
study  of  his  "  Messianic  Prophecy,"  he  would  do  much  to 
clear  the  atmosphere  of  religious  inquiry  in  this  country. 

QUESTIONS. 

Does  Professor  Briggs  think  of  the  divine  as  holding  a 
specific,  and  not  merely  a  generic,  relationship  to  the  order 
of  nature  ? 

Does  he  think  of  the  divine  as  acting,  at  points  within 
the  historical  period,  as  a  specific  genetic  cause,  deter- 
mining specific  events  ? 

In  case  it  seems  to  him  to  act  as  a  specific  cause  within 
the  mind  of  a  prophet,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  region  of 
"  the  imagination  and  fancy  through  foreboding  and 
presentiment,"  does  he  deny,  concerning  any  particular 
and  well  established  case  within  the  range  of  his  special 
Old  Testament  studies,  that  a  psychologist  might  ex- 
plain it  on  naturalistic  principles? 

If  so,  will  he  name  one  or  more  such  cases,  and  say 
whether  his  denial  is  made  as  a  specialist  in  psychology, 
or  as  a  specialist  in  Old  Testament  literature  ? 

In  case  the  divine  or  supernatural  element  affirmed 
belongs  in  the  category  with   "  the  sublime  ideas  of  the 


25 

reason, — form,  and  time  and  space,"  will  he  point  out 
whereabouts,  within  the  course  of  history,  the  super- 
natural cause  intervened  in  behalf  of  these  ideas? 

Does  he  regard  himself  as  a  specialist  uj^on  the  question 
of  the  origin  of  the  ideas  "  that  circumscribe  experience?" 

Does  he  affirm  the  occurrence  of  any  si)ecific  act  of 
su^yernatural  intervention^  either  of  the  kinds  ahove 
referred  to,  or  any  of  any  other  hind,  in  the  course  of 
the  development  of  the  Messianic  idea  from  its  germ 
in  the  Protevangelium  to  its  comjdeted  foi'mf 

If  80,  will  he,  as  a  specialist  in  that  department, 
put  his  finger  upon  some  such  specific  intervention? 


Date  Due 


mmsim&'m^^^m 


